Ga. Power Co. v. Brandreth Farms, LLC.

• Decision Date: 24 June 2022
• Docket Number: A22A0165, A22A0166, A22A0208
• Citation: 875 S.E.2d 444
• Parties: The GEORGIA POWER COMPANY v. BRANDRETH FARMS, LLC. Brandreth Farms, LLC et al. v. The Georgia Power Company. Helms v. The Georgia Power Company.
• Court: Georgia Court of Appeals

875 S.E.2d 444

The GEORGIA POWER COMPANY

v.BRANDRETH FARMS, LLC.

Brandreth Farms, LLC et al.

v.The Georgia Power Company.

Helms

v.The Georgia Power Company.

A22A0165, A22A0166, A22A0208

Court of Appeals of Georgia.

June 24, 2022

Reconsideration Denied July 13, 2022

T. Joshua R. Archer, Atlanta, Malissa Anne Kaufold-Wiggins, Samuel Leslie Lucas, J. Anderson Davis, Rome, Meghan E. Pieler, Atlanta, for Appellant in A22A0165.

John Francis Connolly, Douglas Harold Flint, Canton, for Appellee in A22A0165.

John Francis Connolly, Douglas Harold Flint, Canton, for Appellant in A22A0166, A22A0208.

T. Joshua R. Archer, Atlanta, Malissa Anne Kaufold-Wiggins, Samuel Leslie Lucas, J. Anderson Davis, Rome, Meghan E. Pieler, Atlanta, for Appellee in A22A0166.

T. Joshua R. Archer, Atlanta, Samuel Leslie Lucas, J. Anderson Davis, Rome, for Appellee in A22A0208.

Doyle, Presiding Judge.

The day after Georgia Power technicians serviced the electrical system at Brandreth Farms, a fire broke out in a barn, destroying the barn and other structures, killing multiple horses, and injuring Nathaniel Helms¹ and John Brandreth, the owner of the farm. Brandreth Farms and Brandreth (collectively, "the farm") sued Georgia Power, alleging that it caused the fire and asserting claims for negligence, negligent infliction of emotional distress, breach of contract, and punitive damages. The trial court denied Georgia Power's motion for summary judgment and motion to exclude the testimony of the farm's experts. Helms sued Georgia Power in a separate case, asserting claims for negligence, negligent infliction of emotional distress, and attorney fees, and the trial court granted summary judgment to Georgia Power. In Case No. A22A0165, Georgia Power appeals the trial court's orders denying its summary judgment motion and its motion to exclude the testimony of the farm's experts² ; in Case No. A22A0166, the farm appeals the trial court's order denying its motion to exclude the testimony of Georgia Power's expert; and in Case No. A22A0208, the administrator of Helms's estate appeals the grant of summary judgment to Georgia Power.³ For the reasons that follow, we reverse in Case No. A22A0165, dismiss as moot Case No. A22A0166, and affirm in Case No. A22A0208.

Viewed in the light most favorable to the plaintiffs,⁴ the record shows that Brandreth is the sole owner of Brandreth Farms, which is a horse breeding and exhibition business located on property with a barn and other structures, including Brandreth's residence. On Friday, March 13, 2015, Georgia Power sent technicians to the farm to work on the main barn's electrical system. The technicians determined that a buried line supplying power to the barn was deficient, but could not be repaired that day. As a result, the technicians installed a "service saver" device to provide power to the barn over the weekend, and they temporarily removed the barn's electric meter from its base and attached it to the service saver.⁵ The following Monday, the technicians detached the meter from the service saver, disconnected the service saver, repaired the buried line, and reinstalled the meter to the barn. They finished their work Monday around lunch.

Early the next morning, while standing in his carport, Brandreth saw fire and electrical arcing in the area of the barn where the meter was located. He ran to the barn to save his horses, but five of them died. In addition, the barn, an adjacent arena, and a connecting building were destroyed.

Georgia Power, the farm, and the farm's insurer — National Surety Corporation — sent experts to examine the scene and investigate the cause of the fire. In the debris, they discovered two circuit boards from the barn's electrical meter located 15 and 21 feet away, indicating that the meter had exploded. They also found other meter components showing that electrical arcing had occurred within the device. The experts engaged by the farm and National Surety concluded that the meter malfunctioned first, initiating a fire that spread throughout the barn. They blamed Georgia Power's technicians for either damaging the meter during their work or negligently replacing it without noticing that it was defective. Georgia Power, on the other hand, believed that the fire started elsewhere in the barn and later spread to the meter, causing it to arc and explode.

National Surety paid the farm $742,131.19 for a portion of its losses and then filed a subrogation action against Georgia Power in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia. The district court excluded the testimony of National Surety's causation expert, Edward Brill, under Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals ,⁶ ruling that so little physical evidence had survived the fire that Brill could not rule out the possibility that the fire had originated elsewhere and then spread to the meter.⁷ The court concluded that its job was "to ensure situations with such little evidence do not lead to final expert conclusions based on speculation."⁸

The plaintiffs argued that Georgia Power could be found negligent, even without Brill's testimony, under the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur, in which a jury may infer that the defendant acted negligently if "the occurrence involved would not have occurred but for negligence," and the defendant was "in exclusive control of the instrumentality."⁹ The district court rejected that argument, however, ruling that "a product failure can occur absent negligence[,] and the meter was not in the exclusive control of [Georgia Power]."¹⁰ In the absence of evidence that Georgia Power's negligence caused the fire, the district court granted summary judgment to Georgia Power.¹¹

Meanwhile, Brandreth and the farm sued Georgia Power in Superior Court of Pickens County. Although fact discovery was conducted jointly with the federal case, the farm hired a different causation expert, engineer David Leone. Leone examined the meter's remains and noted that it was missing two of four small cotter pins used to hold the meter's prongs in place. Leone theorized that these pins were missing before the fire and had allowed excessive micro-vibrations within the meter, resulting in mechanical wear and failure. Leone further theorized that the damage to the meter had begun with the arcing and was "not a fire-related phenomenon." Leone could not determine when or how the pins went missing and noted they may have been absent when Georgia Power acquired the meter from the manufacturer. In that event, Leone opined, the technicians should have noticed the missing pins when they moved the meter to work at the barn.

Georgia Power moved to exclude Leone's testimony as too speculative,¹² but the superior court disagreed, ruling that his opinions were admissible under OCGA § 24-7-702 because he used reliable methods and had "sufficient facts and data" to work with. Georgia Power also moved for summary judgment, arguing among other things that the plaintiffs had no admissible evidence of causation, res ipsa loquitur did not apply, and the district court's Nat. Surety Corp . ruling was res judicata. The superior court also denied this motion, ruling that Leone's opinions were sufficient evidence of causation, that the plaintiffs’ res ipsa loquitur theory should go to a jury, and that Georgia Power had "failed to provide clear proof of those parts of the record which are necessary to prove its [res judicata] defense." At Georgia Power's request, the trial court certified these orders for immediate review. Georgia Power filed an application for interlocutory appeal to this Court, which we granted, and timely filed its notice of appeal, which was docketed in this Court as Case Number A22A0165.

Helms, who was at the farm to teach a clinic and sustained burns from the fire while attempting to remove equipment and rescue his horse and others in his care, also sued Georgia Power, asserting claims for negligence, negligent infliction of emotional distress, respondeat superior, and attorney fees. Georgia Power moved for summary judgment, and the trial court granted the motion on the grounds that assumption of the risk barred Helms's claims.

Case No. A22A0165

1. Res judicata/collateral estoppel. Georgia Power contends that the trial court erred by denying its summary judgment motion because res judicata bars the farm's claims. We agree.

The doctrine of res judicata prevents the re-litigation of all claims which have already been adjudicated, or which could have been adjudicated, between identical parties or their privies in identical causes of action. Res judicata prevents a plaintiff from instituting a second complaint against a defendant on a claim that has already been brought, after having previously been adjudged not to be entitled to the recovery sought on that claim. Three prerequisites must be satisfied before res judicata applies – (1) identity of the cause of action, (2) identity of the parties or their privies, and (3) previous adjudication on the merits by a court of competent jurisdiction.¹³

The defendant has the burden of proving res judicata.¹⁴

The farm argues that Georgia Power failed to meet its burden of proving the defense because the record does not contain certified copies of documents in the district court case, that the causes of action are not identical, and that the identity of the parties are not identical.¹⁵

(a) Proof. We find meritless the farm's argument (and the superior court's conclusion) that Georgia Power failed to meet its burden of proving the defense of res judicata by "clear proof."

Certainly, "[t]he defense of res judicata must be sustained by clear proof."¹⁶ And "[t]he record portions submitted must reveal which issues involved in the present suit were put in issue or might have been put in issue in the previous litigation."¹⁷ "But a final prior certified order or judgment may be sufficient to prove the defense, depending on the circumstances of the particular case."¹⁸

Here, each page of the copy of the...